ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2025
Patient-Reported Outcomes Program at Scale at a Cancer Center.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population-Scale Precision Safety in Oncology Reveals Clinical and Genetic Determinants of Systemic Therapy Toxicity.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIncorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into health care processes can improve engagement with patients; however, adopting PROs at scale is challenging. The aim of this study was to describe the design, development, and adoption at scale of a comprehensive PRO program for standard of care and research at a cancer center.
methodsRequirements for a PRO program were obtained from multiple stakeholders. Components of the program included a governance process to assure a consistent and satisfactory experience for patients completing PRO questionnaires, tools to create and manage questionnaires and related content, methods to send questionnaires to relevant patients at the appropriate time, interactive tools for patients to complete the questionnaires as part of their portal experience, and integration of PRO data into workflows for clinicians. We used descriptive statistics to assess the use of the program from 2016 to 2023.
resultsFrom program launch (on February 1, 2016) until December 31, 2023, 189 unique questionnaires were developed (101 for standard-of-care, 70 for research, and 18 for quality improvement). Of the 432,497 unique patients who were assigned at least one questionnaire, 314,685 (73%) completed at least one. Of 5,948,464 questionnaires sent, 3,098,574 (52%) were completed. The median completion time was 2 minutes.
conclusionLarge-scale adoption of PROs at a cancer center is feasible. Key considerations for success include governance processes, attention to patient experience and clinician workflow, and the ability to manage complex inclusion criteria and timing of delivery of questionnaires. These principles should be disseminated so the full potential of PROs in health care can be realized.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.